Wednesday, August 31, 2005

Bush, returning from vacation in Texas today (!), flew over New Orleans at 2500 feet, then Mississippi at 1700 feet. There's a cute picture of him looking out the airplane window in this article.

1700 feet. Yep, that's about the closest you'd want to get to actual suffering, isn't it? You wouldn't want to fly over in a helicopter or anything like that. Might get in the way of rescue efforts.

Meanwhile, the (Republican) governor of Texas, in a shocking example of doing the right thing regardless of what it will cost, not only offered to put up the refugees from New Orleans, but offered to send their kids to school in Texas, so long as they don't have a school to go back to. Just because it is the neighborly thing to do.

Now that's leadership.

3:52 PM

35 Comments:

Actually a helicopter may indeed get in the way of resuce efforts since much of the work being done that way. One thing you'd waste a helicopter that could be used to save lives so the President could look at the ruins below.

Would you have him stop directly into the wreckage personally? His presence would make everything within miles come to a dead stop as it always does with every president.

Why would you be so thoughtless to what is happening as to complain about where the president is? People are dying and you're hissing about politics.

You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm a fan of your blog and I know from reading your stuff that you're smarter than this. Save the irrational paritsan crap for later.

The very juicy relevant bits:"A year ago the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed to study how New Orleans could be protected from a catastrophic hurricane, but the Bush administration ordered that the research not be undertaken. After a flood killed six people in 1995, Congress created the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, in which the Corps of Engineers strengthened and renovated levees and pumping stations. In early 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued a report stating that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S., including a terrorist attack on New York City. But by 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004, the Bush administration cut funding requested by the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent. Additional cuts at the beginning of this year (for a total reduction in funding of 44.2 percent since 2001) forced the New Orleans district of the Corps to impose a hiring freeze. The Senate had debated adding funds for fixing New Orleans' levees, but it was too late.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune, which before the hurricane published a series on the federal funding problem, and whose presses are now underwater, reported online: "No one can say they didn't see it coming ... Now in the wake of one of the worst storms ever, serious questions are being asked about the lack of preparation."

The Bush administration's policy of turning over wetlands to developers almost certainly also contributed to the heightened level of the storm surge. In 1990, a federal task force began restoring lost wetlands surrounding New Orleans. Every two miles of wetland between the Crescent City and the Gulf reduces a surge by half a foot. Bush had promised "no net loss" of wetlands, a policy launched by his father's administration and bolstered by President Clinton. But he reversed his approach in 2003, unleashing the developers. The Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency then announced they could no longer protect wetlands unless they were somehow related to interstate commerce. "

This is not a serious leader. People died in the last 72 hours because of political choices that were made by the administration. That's the cold, hard reality. Deal with it.

I think it's important for political leaders to see a catastrophe first hand. Bush has a tendency to isolate himself from the consequences of his actions. He generally avoids meeting anyone who might disagree with him. I think it would be a good idea for him to see everything first hand.

I also think it's important for people to see that their leaders are on the scene. People need that sort of thing. That's why we have leaders.

It's not a partisan thing. I'm sure if a General Motors plant got devastated by a disaster, the president of GM would be there the next day. And I am sure that Ronald Reagan, or Richard Nixon, or George HW Bush, would have made it a priority. I want the president to do his job.

If I were truly partisan on this one, I'd be rejoicing that he is so obviously uncaring, so obviously out of touch. And I'm not rejoicing.

Once again Bush is outclassed by a local politician. The governor of Texas offered to take the refugees and let their children go to Texas schools. That's the kind of someone's-in-charge leadership Guiliani provided for New York four years ago.Local officials have also done a heroic job.

Why is it unreasonable to expect a president to be as strong a leader as the mayor of New Orleans?

Yeah and lots of people died because Clinton was too much of a pussy too take out B. Laden when he had his chance. Both situations had countless factors involved in them that a random citizen couldn't possibly know what the President should or shouldn't have done.

Actually Alex...Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, etc would have most likely not been on site the next day etc. Now Bush does seem to be a President who out of all those names would take the longest to be seen on site but most of them wouldn't show up till the recovery/relief was done with finding and saving survivors and more into assesing and starting to rrebuild and salvage all the damage.Each disaster is different...and each President acts different. Quite frankly, a lot of Presidents wouldn't have stood on the rubble with the bullhorn, and some may told their people and aides to go fuck themselves(Clinton wouldn't have been one) and shown up right away on site( though it would be a pain in the ass to the rescue and relief workers).

Yeah and lots of people died because Clinton was too much of a pussy too take out B. Laden when he had his chance. Both situations had countless factors involved in them that a random citizen couldn't possibly know what the President should or shouldn't have done.

Um. Well -- except that the guy who was there in every meeting through the last three administrations went on the record in his book saying that Clinton was way more on top of terrorism than the Bushies, who were obsessed with Saddam the moment they came in.

And Clinton wasn't the one who got the memo - while he was on Vacation - saying "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN U.S." and ignored it. There are more than enough corroborating accounts that confirm Richard Clarke's account of the Bush team's asleep-at-the-switch mentality.

But of course, evidence isn't something that moves much of the Bush types. You know, on things like, oh, say...evolution.

Now given I lean toward my uncles opinion given that he's worked for the CIA, it wasn't in a counter terrorism position..though close to it... more so than what several politicians say, especially partisan ones..and Richard Clarke isn't someone I'd believe fully given the extreme bias Clarke had, if Clarke had been honest and come down as harshly on Clinton as he did Bush then I would be more apt to take his opinions seriously.

Its a fact that Clinton had multiple opportunites to remove Bin Laden or at least attack Al-Queda in retaliation for their multiple attacks at us. But again each situation had multiple factors both military, diplomatic, political, and economic involved that could have led Clinton or any other President to make the choice they did or go in the opposite direction. Just as the same is involved in bush's descions whether you agree with them or you do not. It is not a simple question of right or wrong, yes or no, black or white.

Yes everyone knows of the memo Bush recieved...but your going to actually sit there and say that had Clinton or Gore been in that chair they'd have done something drastically different. 9/11 would have happened no matter who had won the election...even if it was Nader,McCain, etc.

And any future attacks will occur despite who-ever is in the White House simply due to the fact that our borders will never be fully secure and the lifestyles and liberties that we enjoy will always make it easy for people to cordinate and execute succesful attacks against any given number of targets...subways,trains,buses,buildings,clubs,churchs,malls etc etc etc.

I'm sure even a group of frat brothers with the right training and equipment could successfully accomplish a large scale attack on a given city...

Is Bush a good President? Of course not...but Clinton wasn't either...so don't cling to that false notion.

Bush won so your stuck with him, hey I resigned myself to it as soon as the top two canidates the Dems could put forth were Dean and Kerry..if there is anyone to blame it is the DNC for pushing John Kerry, who made Al Gore look like JFK, as the salavation for all the Bush haters and democrats in the country.

And don't get your hopes up for 2008. If Hillary wins the nomination, which is the most likely outcome, kiss the election good bye. She'll lose by at least 8-10 percentage points at a minimum. Doesn't matter who the Republican nominee was...even Dick Cheney would throttle her.

The President's job right now is to use his position to help coordinate efforts. Allow the people who need to be in there to get in there with the tools they need to keep saving lives.

The photo ops to make us feel better can wait.

To fall into a useless politcal fight while children are literally dying at the scene is just plain wrong. We need to do what we can, even if that little something is not kicking up duststorms of blame. This disaster isn't even over yet people.

I love a poltical argument as much as the next guy. But right now we need to pray for our brothers and sisters in need and help where we can.

You know what, though? That kind of de rigeur swagger and posturing that worked so well for the Bushies after 9/11, is a different kettle of fish with a president with approval rating at 45 percent (Clinton left office at 60), 1878 Americans dead, terrorists teeming where they weren't before, National Guard members patrolling a land where we're not wanted and where we've instilled so much chaos that 800 people die on a rumor -- instead of helping to defend and help their own people... and a president who CUT FUNDING TO THE AGENCY WHO PREDICTED THIS WOULD HAPPEN, AND HAPPEN SOON.

...the VERY PEOPLE making the "this is not the time" comments in government now are the very people who went over the wall and over the top criticizing Clinton for Kosovo - which, by the way, was a military success where the bad people were actually doing what the government said they were doing.

It is not an act of patriotism to PRAY. It is an act of patriotism to question when your govenrnment is making bad decisions. This government has burned through all their get out of jail free cards.

You don't give a pass to the woman who drank a bottle of vodka a day and then turns around and wonders why her baby has fetal alcohol syndrome. And you don't get to wrap yourself in the flag and be presidential when you were screwing around on your ranch and enacting disastrous policies that DIRECTLY MADE THIS TRAGEDY WORSE.

"But Clinton..."

But Clinton NOTHING. Except, you know, left office with a balanced budget and a country at peace.

But you know, he was bad cause he got a BJ.

Is there ANY AMONG US who would not rather return to WORRYING ABOUT THAT CRAP?

I have to agree with Denis. Saying "don't criticize the President because we have a disaster on our hands" doesn't fly when the President contributed to the disaster. (I'm not sure which disaster I'm referring to. There are now so many to choose from.)

And "but Clinton" is just a cheap shot. I would happily go back to the situation Clinton left us with. "Are you better off now than you were before?" asked Reagan. Uh, no. Give me 1999 any day.

Clinton left us with an economy heading into a recession, the plot of 9/11 about to go into effect. I wouldn't go back to the way the country was when Clinton left because another 9/11 would happen quite easily if that were the case and the economy would be going into the shitter.

However you can't blame Clinton for all that just like you can't give Clinton credit for all the economic windfalls that exisited prior to the bubble bursting.

The argument people are making is that Bush is acting in a largly different way than past presidents. That in fact is false.

New Orleans is not safe for even the police let alone a president to touch down on. I highly doubt that even if the President wanted to walk among the wounded and in the heart of the chaos that he would be even allowed too. No when it comes to his own safety the President does not have the final say.

Bush is not the cause of the disaster in New Orleans.Clinton's faults were mainly on par with Nixon's...he was a scumbag. Too many personal demons that he couldn't control. Pure and simple.

Bush's failings are simply more due to the fact that he believes that to change course is to show weakness or doubt and his whole identity is of a leader who never has doubts or changes course.Unfortunatly for Bush...one of the keys to a great leader is the ability to doubt one's own choices and make quick counter moves to correct any errors or mistakes.

If Bush had been smart he would have eliminated Saddam and his regime and than said adios...good luck to you guys. Whatever became of Iraq would have been better than what was there prior in Saddam. There is no need for us to occupy the country afterwards. Going in and removing Saddam and his regime was a gutsy and bold strategic move...but staying afterwards was a retarded one.

The economy is better right now than what Clinton left it in. Gas sucks but Clinton wouldn't have done anything to improve that.

And hate to update you on this DMC but praying is being patriotic. It's part of the Constituion and Bill of Rights that freedom of religion is a foundation of the the USA.So anytime you do exercise that right, no matter what your religion, your being patriotic..though not in the more conventional and media promoted way.

The most true argument you can make is for Bush depleting the National Reserve due to the occupation of Iraq. but besides that...don't lay the fault of this disaster all on Bush...just like people shouldn't lay the 9/11 plot and its success all on Clinton.

Note: I'm not a Bush fan. I voted for Kerry eventhough I knew it was a waste of time.but I'm sick of the left..they are just as bad as the right. I secretly hope the left gains total control of the Democratic party so they can run it into the ground and force a new party of moderation.

I don't know why I would expect people who ignore recent history, or science, to understand their own history; but let's get a few things straight:

-the "scumbags" (your word) who are in charge now are Republicans. They control all three (soon to be four) pillars of government: the White House, the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court. Stop blaming Clinton.

-the "scumbags" in charge now have more direct ties to the Nixon administration than to the Reagan or Bush 43 administrations. They represent the very paradigm of that failed worldview. Stop blaming Clinton.

-the founding fathers enshrined freedom of religion because they had recent memory of religion using be used as a cudgel against them; just as it's being used as a cudgel right now in everything from judicial appointments to women's health to medical research. Do not besmirch them by claiming their standard for ignorance. They saw the wisdom of enshrining speech, not religion, because they understood that religion could be used as a tool of suppression. The wisdom of the courts over the last 200 years is in realizing that the government of man has no place legislating or favoring one interpretation of what is godly. The freedom to pray is equal to, not superior to, any other freedoms. And oh, stop blaming Clinton. He went to Church just like your drug abusing, drunken, deserting standard bearer.

-Bill Clinton, for all his faults, and they were legion, and there are many Democrats among them who will give you chapter and verse on them, was a tireless thinker who solicited differing points of view and tried to get to the heart of the issue. He did not shut out or shut down inconvenient facts or truth-tellers whose opinion happened to differ from his own. In fact, if you actually study your Bill of Rights, you'll see that he did the hell of a lot more to uphold those rights than the craven backward oil whores who now run the shambles that the United States has become.

-More importantly, cochise, he left office in January, 2001. The statute of limitations for blaming him is over. It's been five years. The 1994 midterms were not George Bush I's fault. Neither was the government shutdown of 1996. The my president, my country right or wrong brigade of the Ditto right is well on the way to bankrupting our nation, and since you don't believe in science or diplomacy, you're kind of queering the deck for any of the challenges we're likely to see in this century...you know, the 21st, not the 19th.

In years to come, Clinton may well be judged as a disappointment as a president. But George W. Bush will undoubtedly be a ruinous disaster. I just hope the book saying so isn't published only in our new primary language, Chinese.

Stop blaming Clinton.This is your guy's watch. Wear the freight.

Whatever happened to "the buck stops here?"

Oh wait. That guy was a Democrat, too.

If any of these crackers were actual Republicans, maybe we wouldn't be so screwed. Sadly, we're being ruled now by the Disney Storytime Wing of the Republican Party.

It's amazing to me too see the same hate oozing out of the left of the democratic party that was so evident from the republicans of 5 to 10 years ago, which drove me nuts and seemed an utter waste of time.

They get so clouded by their hate that they can't make a clear rational argument..it just turns into personal attacks and lame ass arguments.

Thats why it would be so facinating to see the far left n far right splinter from their respective parties creating a third center party. It would drastically change the way things run, and would be a joy to watch n study.

Now the leftovers of the Democratic party would be greater than that of the Republican party simply due to the growing spread of the christian right in that given party...but still the ability for that center or moderate party to get things done would be fascinating.

Nice try. But your arguments can't even hold water in a damn blog post. I seem splenetic? Sure. But then again, I've traveled a bit and have a view of something other than my own bum.

To wit: your analogies and equations are non-starters.A few posts ago you equated Clinton to Nixon. Even though the Nixonites from Rumsfeld on down are the guys filling GW's dance card.

Clinton was the standard bearer for he Democratic Leadership Council. The centrist wing of the Democrats. Why did the right really hate him? I mean, really, really, really hate him? Not because of the BS trumped up reasons -- but because Clinton had the wisdom to co-opt some good ideas if they came from across the aisle. He got heat for doing this from both the right and the left -- which by any modern definition of politics, mean you're doing something right.

You try to contrast and compare that experience to a President that even his supporters admit is in thrall to the right-right, evangelical Christian wing of the party.

Your laughable miscomparison and misreading of political trends in both parties, and your wilful desire to reduce nuance to simplicities, is also nothing new. It's what the Federalists and the Democrats were fighting over in 1800. Like you, they always claimed they spoke for the centre. The real extremists are the ones who don't see the forest for the trees, and who present themselves as the voice of reason when they're really the voice of knee-jerk stupidity. Your facts and reading of recent history, constitutional history, and ...well...American history are dead wrong. It's no wonder your statements show such a sad passion for the simplistic, and such a vast misunderstanding of the political realities at work in both parties.

I dunno why you guys are arguing with "BG". He's the guy who thinks Bush isn't a moron. Evidently, he prefers "leaders" who speak in the vernacular of 3rd graders. (Not that Bush would know what the word "vernacular" means, he has enough problems with "soveriegn".)

What is Clinton's greatest flaw?...while a great strategic thinker and tact politician he was unable to control his own personal demons and urges which led to stupid and unethical personal and political problems which undermined his ability to govern.

Hmmm...Nixon was actually a superior politician and strategic thinker...but his personal flaws and demons were far greater than Clinton's. Clinton was hated for too numerous reasons to even account, many which simply came down to the fact that he was a better politician than most of his adversaries.

Go ask any political historian what president is best used as an analogy to Clinton in terms of skills, flaws, etc.You'll get Nixon every-time.

Clinton is already judged as a disappointment, though Bush is making him look better. Bush also will be judged as a disappointment...though whether he is viewed as a complete disaster will be based solely on the outcome in Iraq/Middle East. Political historians will judge him most harshly for his infringes against the separation of powers written in the constitution and his misuse of presidential power in terms of accountability and civil liberties.

"-the "scum-bags" (your word) who are in charge now are Republicans. They control all three (soon to be four) pillars of government: the White House, the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court. Stop blaming Clinton"

Yeah and they were voted in by who..oh yeah...the people. Oh I forgot...all the people that don't think like you are idiots.

In both the Senate, House, White House, and Supreme Court...there are most certainly "scum-bags" but they exists as both Democrats and Republicans. For you to argue that they only exist among the Republicans shows just how stupid, biased, and without merit your argument is. I'd assume that your not arguing that its only Republicans but that they control the House and Senate so they share the majority of the responsibility. Which is true, but its actually more of a segment of those parties that control the power.

Who's blaming Clinton? Not me.

"But Clinton NOTHING. Except, you know, left office with a balanced budget and a country at peace.But you know, he was bad cause he got a BJ."

This is an interesting argument given that Clinton was in fact on duty while Al-Queda grew to it's incredible pre 9/11 strength, and set in motion the plans to bomb the Cole, World Trade Center, and finally the plot of 9/11...and the Taliban ran free in Afghanistan.

Whether Clinton was planning on doing something about them before the Impeachment is open for debate...but regardless the impeachment was his own doing.

Only idiots would argue that this would be entirely Clinton's fault given that he was President at the time...but those same people would have to then argue that a natural disaster was entirely Bush's fault since he was President at the time.

Clinton was pushed towards the center...but also realized that it was where he & we had to go.

But the hatred and contempt for both the opposing party, their members and the President is quite similar and no...a vast majority of moderate to conservative Democrats don't think that Bush is evil, a moron, or a scum-bag.

Now they may wish they could have their vote back from 2004, but it would be for his poor leadership.

You seem stuck on the whole not believing in science issue which is understandable to a point given that it makes no sense in teaching IDT in school unless your also going to teach kids about magic, unicorns, and dragons. There is however nothing wrong with believing in IDT, but as many on the left seem to view...and apparently in your case too...that it somehow makes that person an idiot or beneath your level of thinking simply shows a case of snobbish false superiority on their and your part.

The left of the democratic party certainly does not speak for the center of american people..much like the right or in actuality the majority of the Republican party does not either.

Now whether or not these are true impressions or not..the only ones that can be taken from your arguments are that your passionate, but highly condescending and dismissing of those that might not share your opinions or even be something other than a democrat, you have a serious superiority complex in terms of your intellectual and political knowledge which is unfounded, and the most evident impression is that you so hate Bush and the Republicans that you don't even read or listen to what a person might say if it happens to even slightly disagree with your own beliefs. Damn...that sounds just like GWB.

Now I might take your vast political and worldly knowledge to heart if you say where a political historian, foreign diplomat, mastered in international or american poli sci, or at the minimum you were Joss Whedon( Joss is the shit...thus anything he says or writes has to be the shit)...but your not. So I'll have to reject the assumption that you know more than I or anyone else does...simply because you say so.

Oh and p.s.The Republican parties Kung Fu is stronger than ours. Its that simple. Throw in Hillary Clinton as a nominee...yikes 1st round knock out

Morons don't get elected President of the USA and then win re-election. It's just a fact. Even if you don't like the guy...and I don't. I do respect his campaign/political skills...if Kerry had even a smidgen of them he might have won.

Shrub didn't "win" 2 elections. The first one was given to him by the SC and the second one... I have doubts about it's legitimacy, especially in light of the fact that there was no confirming reciept given for the votes that we cast. Your "non moron" arguments STILL has holes.

Btw, it's not Bush who masterminded his ascendency, it's Rove, who is clearly no moron.

He won both..only losers and whiners think otherwise.Just like in a a baseball or any other game...doesn't matter if there is a bad call or anything else...who ever is assigned the W at the end of the game is the winner. period.

Thank God. Easy homilies. Just what this debate needed. Enclosed please find your application for the White House Communications Office. Now we just need your eyes and your ears and you're ready to go. Monkey.

Nah..I actually just got a job as a agent's assistant and he's already proving to be quite the screamer...so I think I'll have my hands full for quite awhile with the job.And I have to be honest... bashing Bush on the christian conservative blogs is much more fun way to kill time then trying to defend Bush against the lefties.

Besides...if anything has been proven by Bush's presidential response to Katrina is that the post 9/11 "standing on the rubble with the bullhorn" was a fluke and it's doubtful if Bush has the skill or ability to summon it at will like other charasmatic politicians.